Re: [Spice-devel] [PATCH spice] reds: don't unlink existing UNIX socket

2018-12-20 Thread Daniel P . Berrangé
On Thu, Dec 20, 2018 at 06:58:34PM +0400, Marc-André Lureau wrote: > Hi > > On Thu, Dec 20, 2018 at 5:44 PM Daniel P. Berrangé > wrote: > > > > On Thu, Dec 20, 2018 at 05:37:40PM +0400, marcandre.lur...@redhat.com wrote: > > > From: Marc-André Lureau > > > > > > Since "reds: add Unix socket sup

Re: [Spice-devel] [PATCH spice] reds: don't unlink existing UNIX socket

2018-12-20 Thread Marc-André Lureau
Hi On Thu, Dec 20, 2018 at 5:44 PM Daniel P. Berrangé wrote: > > On Thu, Dec 20, 2018 at 05:37:40PM +0400, marcandre.lur...@redhat.com wrote: > > From: Marc-André Lureau > > > > Since "reds: add Unix socket support" (commit > > 5365caeaae537f564d160936e60f71b2dc964ad1), the Spice server will > >

Re: [Spice-devel] [PATCH spice] reds: don't unlink existing UNIX socket

2018-12-20 Thread Daniel P . Berrangé
On Thu, Dec 20, 2018 at 05:37:40PM +0400, marcandre.lur...@redhat.com wrote: > From: Marc-André Lureau > > Since "reds: add Unix socket support" (commit > 5365caeaae537f564d160936e60f71b2dc964ad1), the Spice server will > remove existing socket before binding. > > Although it may seem handy at f

[Spice-devel] [PATCH spice] reds: don't unlink existing UNIX socket

2018-12-20 Thread marcandre . lureau
From: Marc-André Lureau Since "reds: add Unix socket support" (commit 5365caeaae537f564d160936e60f71b2dc964ad1), the Spice server will remove existing socket before binding. Although it may seem handy at first, this is a bad idea, as it may create confusion (or worse). Fortunately, passing the